July 26, 2001

Ms. Cheryl Roberto

City of Columbus

Department of Public Utilities

910 Dublin Road

Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Ms. Roberto:

Thank you for meeting with the Darby Creek Association Trustees at our July 11 Board Meeting at the Hilliard Public Library. As we discussed, DCA has reviewed the Draft Hellbranch Run Watershed Protection Overlay and would like to offer these comments.

We have expedited our review and are sending these comments in advance of the public meetings (announced on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 in your email message) to underscore our sense of urgency in this matter. We are very concerned that time is of the essence. This is the same attitude take by the Ohio EPA, which has expedited their planned study of the Darby to this year and said: "We suspect that water quality in the Darby watershed is getting worse at some locations, particularly on the eastern edge of the watershed where development pressure is high."  (quotes from Ohio EPA fact sheet)

We continue to be hopeful that Central Ohio can break new ground in designing a development approach that allows economic growth and development in a highly-sensitive watershed without destroying the unique natural resources which exist there. The City of Columbus plays a critical leadership role in this effort and will set the tone for much of what other local governments may do.

We appreciate your time and effort in this process and look forward to your consideration of these comments.

Columbus is pursuing a two-tiered approach to development standards in the Darby Watershed.  West of Hellbranch Run and Clover-Groff Ditch, tributaries to Big Darby Creek, the city is proposing an Environmentally Sensitive Development Area (ESDA).  During our meeting, Ms. Roberto described this region as being off-limits to Columbus development (or suburban development supplied with Columbus sewer and water lines), "until we know how to do it."  She added that this area needs multi-jurisdictional planning, which would presumably include city, county, suburban, and township governments. Columbus’ approach to this challenge, its Metropolitan Facilities Plan Update of 11/3/00, is still awaiting OEPA approval. (Note: It is unclear what will happen if the Facilities Plan is not approved, which is likely, given the high level of opposition from area governments to the plan)

To the east of Hellbranch, however, the city is proposing a unilateral approach.  Here officials feel the city can provide stream protection through a zoning overlay specific to the Hellbranch watershed.   According to documents provided at the meeting, the purpose of the overlay is to "minimize adverse impacts on the Darby watershed."  Ms. Roberto provided a draft outline and sample ordinance.

The overlay features a number of important protections.  It will:

End the practice of burying small tributaries in storm sewer pipes.

Dictate no net changes in the area of the flood plain, or in the flood plain’s capacity to store stormwater.

Establish a stream bank buffer that will include either the entire 100-year flood plain, or a 120-foot riparian corridor, whichever is largest.  For smaller tributaries to Hellbranch, Clover-Groff, and Hamilton Ditch, the riparian buffer will be 75 feet.

Require at least 40 percent open space for all developments.

Mandate that stormwater quality be mitigated through extended detention, natural or constructed wetlands, or other approved means—outside the flood plain— for the purpose of removing pollutants, reducing channel erosion, and controlling impacts from flooding.

DCA trustees recognize that this is a serious attempt by Columbus to address concerns raised by our group and many others in recent months. 

DCA has a number of concerns that we feel need to be addressed before we can support Columbus’ proposal.

For starters, we see a glaring weakness in having two strategies for the same watershed.  The city understands the need for careful planning - that’s why it proposed the ESDA in the majority of the Hellbranch watershed.  Yet at the same time it is willing to exempt part of the watershed from this planning.   Columbus should include the entire watershed in the ESDA.

The only justification given for this inappropriate two-tiered strategy has been that "development is already occurring" east of Hellbranch, and it wouldn’t be fair to halt this process midstream.  DCA does not find this explanation compelling.   Political pressure from developers seems more likely to be the driving factor, rather than concern over fairness.  In reality, developers are desperate to break into the lucrative Darby area.  They are lobbying hard to get there, throwing a lot of money and legal muscle at the border.

So far, Columbus has bent.  The Spindler Road boundary adjustment to the existing Environmental Conservation District shows that Columbus City Council’s commitments to environmental protection are not iron-clad. We do not have sufficient confidence that the City has the political will to enforce even these lower standards to support this approach.

Pressure from developers may be Darby’s undoing, but this is nothing new.  A recently completed U.S. EPA case study reviewed nearly 30 years of efforts to protect Darby, and it is highly critical of the development community.  "Development interests were little involved in Darby protection efforts," it concludes.  In summarizing the threat residential growth poses , the agency was blunt:  "These threats did not appear to be under good control, and appeared to be especially serious."

To get better control, Columbus should be promoting regional cooperation.  Why?  Because if every jurisdiction "builds-out" its portion of the watershed, even with environmentally sensitive techniques, widespread impacts will be inevitable.  There is a limit to how much farmland you can turn into houses and still have a healthy stream.  Figuring out this limit can only come through cooperation between stakeholders.  Columbus believes it has promoted cooperation through its ESDA; but so far their approach has not gone over well in other jurisdictions and le to their formal opposition to this plan.

There has been no specific study of whether the proposed standards are sufficient to protect Hellbranch.  While we appreciate Columbus’s efforts, we still think water quality standards should be science-based.  As trustee Terry Stewart put it, "they’re experimenting with the Darby."

For example, the 40 percent open space figure is arbitrary, and does not use what is a more reliable standard for stream protection, namely impervious surface, a standard recommended by the Center for Watershed Protection, a group recognized as a leader in the field of preserving streams from the effects of development.  Also, the 40 percent level is only 5 points higher than that proposed in the Southeast Area Plan (which provides for 35 percent open space). We question whether the Darby Watershed can be protected with only 5 percent more open space than an area that has no unique natural resources.

A theoretical assessment of the 40 percent open space standard approach indicates it will end up significantly degrading Hellbranch Run. Allowing for 60 percent development and using a conservative MORPC estimate for impervious surface (35% for residential development) indicates 21 percent of the Hellbranch Watershed will be impervious surface. This level of impervious surface is not compatible with healthy freshwater ecosystems. (Note: DCA estimated in its 9/5/00 comments on the Draft Facilities Plan Update that the Hellbranch is already at 11.25% impervious surface – a dangerously high level).

Perhaps the city’s unwillingness to use impervious surfaces stems from the fact that parts of Hellbranch have already exceeded recommended limits of imperviousness.  While these published limits do not take into consideration the kinds of stormwater mitigation the city is planning, without specific study, the city is merely guessing and treating this irreplaceable natural as a guinea pig.

A science-based process that identifies critical resources is consistent with what is being pursued by the Darby Watershed Coordinator, Tam Kutzmark (SW districts) and the OEPA's TMDL process.  By going ahead with their own development agenda at the very moment these two important initiatives are just getting started, Columbus is not cooperating in what so many others agrees is necessary. 

One DCA Trustee recommends we begin with a simple approach:  "Start from an estimate of what it would take to actually save the Hellbranch watershed."  So far such a baseline has not been established.

Regional watershed planning should ascertain the level of development that would cause no degradation of Hellbranch Run.  In fact, it should show how state water quality goals and standards will be achieved, even when they are not now.  This should be confirmed by a neutral party (not paid by Columbus) that has demonstrated expertise in watershed development analysis. 

Both Ms. Roberto and Councilman Richard Sensenbrenner (in published comments on recent Hellbranch Watershed annexations) have described their objective as "minimizing" impacts to the Darby system.  We recommend a more proactive goal:  improving the Darby system.

The importance of an improvement objective is especially critical for the Hellbranch, already one of the lowest-quality tributaries to the Darby. Much of the Hellbranch area already does not meet State water quality standards.  Development is cited by Ohio EPA as one significant reason for this low quality.  How can additional development do anything but add to the problem unless a concerted effort is focused on improving the area’s ecosystem.

A cooperative, comprehensive approach is needed.  Such regional planning is occurring in a variety of places across the country.   One example is nearby Fairfield County.  At the July Darby Partners meeting the model planning process they used was outlined by Tim DeWitt, of Bennett and Williams Environmental Consultants.  Called Land Evaluation Site Assessment, or LESA, the process consists of examining all the characteristics of a region—whether it is a political body, or, in our case, a watershed—and mapping out areas where development is appropriate. 

In western Franklin County, such a process could identify "critical resource" areas based on a straightforward goal:  protecting the Darby ecosystem.   Critical resources would include those identified by Columbus’s zoning overlay—riparian buffers and flood plain—but could be expanded to include critical areas with hydric soils, existing wetlands, and surviving forests.  Other areas could be set aside to connect open space in large parcels, rather than leaving patches arbitrarily littered across the landscape.

With such a framework in place, decisions regarding future growth could be discussed and planned, rather than handled piece-meal as properties here and there are put forth by developers.  Other goals could also be achieved, such as planning for roads, schools, and public services.

We have heard that Franklin County is considering the idea.  DCA advocates that the county and Columbus join in such a process for the entire Darby watershed.

A comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional, science-based process that identifies critical resources is consistent with what is being pursued by the Darby Watershed Coordinator, Tam Kutzmark (SW districts) and the OEPA's TMDL process. Although even these efforts need to do more to include hydrologic modification and habitat alteration as possibly the most important factors in Darby quality degradation.

While we think this plan’s shortcomings are too significant to ensure the Darby’s continued health, we do recognize the City’s efforts to move in the right direction.

We also note the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation establishment of the Clover-Groff Natural Area along the Clover-Groff Ditch on the north side of Roberts Road near Hilliard.  While these areas must be much larger to provide adequate riparian buffer and floodplain, we believe this is the type of restoration approach that Columbus and other entities must pursue much more vigorously.

DCA believes Columbus needs to step back and reassess its basic goals.  DCA will continue to urge caution, patience, and most of all science-based planning.  We remain convinced that this is the best approach to secure a successful future for the Darby Creek ecosystem.

Sincerely,

Steve Borror

President

CC: Central Ohio Media, Multiple Darby Stakeholders